tv Government Access Programming SFGTV April 15, 2019 11:00pm-12:01am PDT
>> good afternoon. my name is kelly, i'm a human rights organizer at the coalition on homelessness. i have to say, i'm really happy not to be here talking and being an m.t.a. about another ban, it is a very refreshing having this conversation, and to be looking at real alternatives and to help folks. we constantly get -- we had one today during the rally beforehand, someone had their vehicle towed and had their home towed, and that is a huge hit for folks, that is a huge loss, and people have, you know, during the super bowl and all that stuff with the tense, where folks said, i just kept getting hit constantly, i was able to scrap enough together to get a vehicle, and now they are being targeted with living in their
vehicle. so i think this is a good shift in the right direction of creating real alternatives, instead of enforcement. thank you. >> thank you. >> hi, supervisors, my name is sam, i work at the coalition on homelessness. i want to give a huge thank you to the supervisors for taking leadership on this, and a huge shout out to all the on house people who are here and sharing their powerful stories and experiences around living in their vehicles on and the challenges that come around that i want to share about someone who we just found out is being towed between the time that we had the rally, and the hearing right now. she told me that she wanted to share this story with you all during public comment. she is someone who recently purchased her vehicle, had to flee her home -- home because of a domestic violence situation and now has to pay $527 just to get her car out of the tow yard,
and she is someone who is experiencing homelessness, and cannot pay that fee, and i think it really speaks to why we need this legislation now, immediately, and why we needed it years and years ago, because she will be losing the most valuable asset that she has, and it's likely going to be sold for someone to be bought, and she will either be on the streets, or waging four to six weeks just to get into shelter, so this is one thing that i have huge support for, and also, the towing stuff that is also in the legislation, but i would love of these offices here's support to help get her car out of the tow yard. the fees will increase i 3:00 p.m. today, and every day moving forward, so if we can help work on that case today,
that would be amazing. thank you. >> thank you. fingers are just so much less satisfying. thank you supervisor brown and others. more than two decades ago, a group of people living vehicles coalesced in her were organized calling them selves a residential association. they designed a program, they didn't divide property, even got funding. the porch told the property, but all these years since, folks have been calling for a safe place to park. it is such a simple request, so simple, getting chased from block to block, terrorized by ticketing and harassment, fear of losing the very last thing they have that means so much, unlocked, a modicum of privacy, a place or belongings -- for belongings. we have a housing crisis. we need innovative responses. we need solutions for a variety of people. we can no longer have a system
where we are pushing people out of their housing, chasing them out of cars, and then ripping away their tents once they're on the streets, we wholeheartedly support this legislation. why? does not say let's have a place for a few and then criminalize the rest, no, it says, let's start with a space for a few and stop criminalizing the rest. it does not say, we are going to give help if you leave town, gives people help to stay in their community, and hopefully, ideally, lead into housing. it does not force people to die or get close to dying before they get help. it stabilizes people before all is lost, so it is now two decades later. this is really wonderful, it is the time, it has taken too long, let's make this happen and pass this legislation. thank you so much. >> thank you. i have one more speaker card?
-- too. please get in line. thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i work in the coalition on homelessness. first thing i want to tell you guys is about saying thank you for introducing this legislation it has taken us 20 years to pass this legislation. we have been spending a lot of money, millions and millions of dollars in criminalizing, it is not great. we're supposed to spend this money housing people. i wanted to share this with you. this is specifically about families with children who are sleeping in their fans, and they are feeling threats when the police are coming with guns, and knock knock, on the car.
imagine two or three police officers and children, the children and the parents are sleeping overnight, in the morning the police are coming. it is a problem. i don't think it is really great that we have to think about this , so if we really want to solve the problem, we have to bring in the right people, the right persons to do outreach and talk to the families in the homeless people who are staying in their vehicles because we cannot -- thank you so much for introducing this legislation, and all the people, the supervisors who are supporting. it is time to change this. we are repressing so many homeless people, it is time to change it. thank you.
>> thank you. >> hello, maria, i live in san francisco, i wanted to say thank you for introducing this legislation. i wish we already had it, but it's great that we are working on this. thanks. >> thank you. >> good afternoon, i am the founder and executive director of the homeless prenatal program as a resident in district five. i just want to say thank you. this is really important that we have -- i don't want families to live in cars, but it seems to be what is happening now, but if they are forced to live in their cars, then it should be in a safe place, and the reason for getting up is in 2018, in san diego, a psychologist by the name of teresa smith started a program. it is called dreams for change, so it has been done, it works, and she did not started in 2018,
in 2018, she got the irvine foundation leadership award, so she is recognized for this work, and it is important that we do it." be great if we could have better places for our kids. he certainly can't cook and cars , but she set up a system that works fairly well for the time being, so thank you for even considering this. >> thank you. next speaker. >> hello, my name is larry ackerman, i would like to thank supervisor brown and others for working on this -- developing this legislation. i want to tell you about my experience, or what i had learnt about people living in their cars. i had two close friends that lost their income stream, and subsequently lost their apartment. they ended up with their few
possessions in a car, and they had problems, mostly because they had to always move, move around, drive around, find a place to park, it was very unstable, there was no safe place that they knew they could park and sleep overnight. they also had to, there was some issue with the registrations, which i don't think ever got resolved, so they needed help with that legal part and the d.m.v. never had any resources for that, and one day, i also got a call that their car wouldn't start or wasn't running , and i ended up paying for a new fuel filter for them, because they had no other way to deal with this issue, so i'm
happy that this legislation addresses some of these at least meekly, and will help the people that are forced into this life in a vehicle. subsequently they left that on the streets. one got into a medical program and eventually housed. the other guy is on the streets. i saw him on the street last night, he sleeps on the sidewalk or in a park. thank you. >> thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i have inserted myself into public comment because i'm not yet accustomed to sitting in the staff dock, but i want to let you know the m.t.a. is here. not just listening, but i want to express gratitude to supervisor brown and others, the m.t.a. has wrestled with this
problem for years in a very unsatisfactory way, my board of directors has been very reluctant to move on restrictions, although we have, the agency has restricted streets, but there is a huge reluctance because of the awareness and the effects of parking restrictions and parking enforcement. we are very grateful, not only willing to participate, we are working pretty closely with the commander and other city agencies and we look forward to wherever this legislation goes, working with this body and our partners, the coalition of homelessness and other folks to find a more humane way to help folks who don't have a choice and are living in vehicles. >> thank you, andy. that is it for public comment. >> we will close public comments thank you supervisor brown, i
thank you to everyone who testified. i believe the sponsor would like to duplicate the file, she has unilateral right to do. and what would you like to do with the original file? >> actually -- >> my bad, i did not acknowledge supervisor haney go ahead, thank you, chair peskin, i will be quick. i want to appreciate everyone who came out and spoke, especially to the folks who have experience in homelessness or are experiencing homelessness. we appreciate you all being here in the work you've done to help shape this legislation, and of course, supervisor brown for your leadership. i am very supportive of this. this is the kind of creative approach that we need, and a recognition that homelessness is experienced in different ways,
and we have to be innovative and proactive and how we respond to its. i did want to ask a question, maybe this is best for the director, we heard a bit that there are a number of families that all experiencing vehicular homelessness, and in some ways, that is a little bit of a different challenge than we face in other types of responses where generally there are places for families, and places which are more for only adults, i would like to know a bit more about how we plan to address the needs of families in this environment, and particularly children. obviously there will be some needs in and around having places to study, research and types of services, or hopefully
really accelerated way to get those folks into housing or family shelters that doesn't require them to give up their car. can you speak to how you see this working for families, specifically? >> ideally, thank you, supervisor haney. ideally, what we would do is on the site, also have vehicle storage available, and we would offer shelter immediately to every family who shows up. however, that may not work for every family, so i think it will require flexibility and partnership with the service provider, whoever is selected to operate the site, but our first efforts will be offered to store the vehicle and have the family stay in shelter. >> that makes sense. and i think that, you know, obviously we want to make sure especially for families, but for
everyone who has that option, it would be more ideal than having them stay there. i imagine for a lot of folks they can't give up their car or they have nowhere to store their car, and that can be a barrier to get into shelter. i've heard this from some folks who, for example, may stay regularly at the next door shelter, which is near where i live, and they have a lot of challenges because they have nowhere to put their car and then there is no parking and it creates a whole cycle, and i'm sure that is part of what we hope to be able to address with this. thank you, again for your leadership and thank you for answering that question. >> supervisor brown? >> i also wanted to respond to mate nietzsche check question that if there is a lot of families, and i know i've talked to people actually need their car to go to work, and they live in it, when they come into the triage center, it will be case by case, jeff talks about that. if they need for work, we will
have to make sure they have that available. but thank you. so i would like legislation to move forward, and i would like to duplicate the file, chair peskin, because we need time to work with the sfpd and the city attorney to determine the carve out for the police code for allow for the -- to allow for the programs indicating legislation. >> okay. let me be clear. you brought up some amendments today, so would you like to first take the amendments, then duplicate the file accent the amended file, and keep one in committee? >> correct. >> colleagues, is their first, we will not duplicate the file, is a motion to accept the amendments that are in front of us? >> yes. >> we will take those without objection. we will duplicate the file, keep one file, and continue into the call of the chair and sends the
original file as amended to the full board with recommendation. without objection, that will be the order. congratulations to supervisor brown. >> thank you. >> next item, please. >> resolution receiving and approving the biannual housing balance report, number 8, dated april 1st, 2019, amended as required by planning code section 103. >> okay. it seems like we just heard the last six month report, but here, time flies, this is sponsored by supervisor marr, mar, i believe his staff is here she presents. we have teresa from planning. >> i will make my remarks brief. legislative aide to supervisor mar. i'm here to speak on behalf of the supervisor who introduced
this legislation to ensure this report's timely filing. we recognize that district four needs to play a bigger role addressing the affordable housing crisis. as underscored by this housing balance report. the accumulative housing balance in our district is the lowest among all districts and a negative 260-point 7%, much of this is due to the number of units prudently withdrawn from rent control protection, relative to the number of total net to you -- new units. district four has a leak built 20 units of affordable housing and no small site acquisition. but his support increases density and building 100% affordable housing and preserving and protecting existing housing particularly through the small sights program , and so do many of our constituents. we are seeing some movement with seven moderate income units in the pipeline, as well as an educator housing project which would bring approximately 130 affordable units to the outer
sunset, both of which are not accounted for in the housing balance, but as we deepen our conversations with community affordable housing developers, we are running into structural barriers that prevent us from building the housing. community needs, including a lack of a westside affordable housing developer. if we want to improve the housing balance across san francisco, we need to support the districts struggling to meet the mar. we need to talk about geographic balance and conversations around the budget, and the affordable housing bond, directing affordable housing dollars where it hasn't been directed. we need to talk about the kind of funding, funding for capacity building, site acquisition and development. various identified by front of the housing developers. supervisors, we hope the housing balance report proves useful to inform you decisions for future affordable housing developments, and thank you to teresa for preparing this report and for your presentation. >> thank you.
theresa teresa, come on up. -- teresa, come on up. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is theresa, i'm a principal planner with a citywide policy planning section of city planning. i am here to talk about the health and balance report numbe. this is for your information, and for your acceptance. so what is the housing balance report? in april of 2015, the board of supervisors approved ordinance 50 3:15 to add section 103 to the planning code. this section directs the planning department to monitor and report the balance between newmarket rate housing and the new affordable housing production.
the housing balance is the proportion of all new affordable housing units to the total number of net new units. over a ten-year housing balance period. the ordinance requires a biannual reporting, and i will be talking about the reports, which we will submit -- which were cemented to youtube weeks ago, and covers the period from the beginning of 2009 to the fourth quarter of 2018. so why a housing balance? one goal of the ordinance is to ensure that data on meeting affordable housing targets citywide, and within neighborhoods informs the approval process for new housing developments. just a reminder to you supervisors, here are three separate affordable housing production targets cited in the mandate and each has its own monitoring and reporting requirements. the housing balance report gives
context to the goals. the housing elements mandated by the state to be updated periodically, sets a production goal of about 28,000 new units to be built between 2015 and 2022. this is commonly called regional housing needs allocation goals. fifty 7% should be affordable to low and moderate income households. the planet department submits an annual report in the city's progress in meeting these goals to the state department of housing and community development. proposition k., passed by san francisco voters in 2014 set a goal that 33% of net units be affordable. the -- this is the goal that the balance report will be aiming for. to the late to mayor ed lee, 30,000 by 2020 also set a goal of 30% affordable units.
the mayor's office of housing and community development prepares a weekly dashboard highlighting progress towards meeting this goal. it we should be noted that the housing elements and in the 30 by 2020 have their own reporting requirements. what is the ten year historic affordable housing production trend? if we are to look at just knew housing production, affordable housing made up of 25%, or a quarter of net new units built in the last ten years. i would like to add that this is a proportion that has been more or less consistent in the last two decades or more, it is just a tad higher then the last housing balance report the housing balance calculation however looks beyond new housing
production, it also looks at entitled and permitted affordable units, - units removed from protected status. essentially, these are rent-controlled units that are removed from the rental market, either through the ellis act, demolition to conversion, and owner move in evictions. this is collectively called the next affordable stock per -- for the purposes of this report. >> let me just jump in for a second because the three years that i have been back on the boards, i have seen about half a dozen of these reports, and it
is a very helpful tool for decision-makers and the public to monitor market rate versus affordable, but when we're looking at the percentage, and given that -- the staff -- the steps that we all throw around, every two units of affordable housing that we are building, we are losing one, that is the common statistic that these reports have been showing us over time, in the last report had ascetic human which of housing balance about the same as this report, 25%. i really wanted to drill down a bit, and i can do this at the end of your presentation if you would like, into the issue around how we calculate units removed from protected status, and made her stand the board broadens that by adding owner move ins on the theory that they were no-fault, they were -- they removed a unit from rent control
, either forever or for an extended period of time, what seems to me like we might want to consider and then thinking out loud here, drilling down into that category of units lost in a more comprehensive, albeit maybe hard to calculate way, which is, the phenomenon of tenant buyouts which are very poorly reported although it is a requirement requirements, but not a well enforced one, brings about this whole category of units that are not going into units removed from protected status. if a whole building is staff -- sought out and there is no application for a condo conversion, it is still lost from that rent-controlled protected status, and i'm interested in knowing, and this is a conversation for the land
use committee and the board in the public to have, whether or not there is a way of once again amending this law to try to add that number. i actually think, anecdotally, that the numbers are not as good as two -1° think they are worse and they are approaching 1-1 and a say that as a district three supervisor where there are a huge number of buyouts that i know have happened, and i know the people category know people who know the people who have been bought out, but they have never been reported. and those units have been removed from rent control. that does not even get to another body of rent-controlled stock, where people leave, whether or not they are harassed out or bought out or maybe they failed to pay their rent, but that unit which was, i am making
up a number, renting for $1,000, is now renting for three and four times that much. they are still subject to rent control, but they have effectively become market rate units, and those don't go into the calculation either. i understand why there is a different thinking around those because they are subject to chapter 37 of the ministry to code, and i'm sorry for delving into this, but it is a conversation worth having, particularly because on the housing generation side, we include it's and we include acquisition rehab, and while we are all very proud and thankful for these programs and my office has participated in freeing up seismic safety bonds money for rehab and my district has benefited and the reason the numbers look so good and district three is because of the five under 77 units that are 990 pacific and the pangs along
this presentation covers the passing balance report, and the net affordable housing stock totaled about 11,000 units. this net affordable housing stock overall most 40,500 units is about the cumulative over 10 year period the same as last year. districts. the housing balances for the board of supervisors districts range from negative 261% in district 4 to 65% in district 5.
negative balances are larger numbers of units net new units built overall. while 34 new units were added to district four, 20 of these are a.d.u.s and not considered by the state to be affordable by design to households with moderate incomes. meaning almost two-thirds of the units added in district four were affordable. however, almost 480 rent controlled units in the same districts were removed from protected status, hence, the high negative balance. in district five, on the other hand, we saw not only new affordable units added. it had units we habs acquisition as well as transfer of the
rental assistance demonstration program. there were less represent controlled units removed in district five. districts two, three, five, six, eight, nine and 10 have positive balances. the rest had negative balances. the next slide shows distribution by planning districts. the range of balances range from negative 270 in the same geography as district four to about 126% in braille heights and 72% in the western addition. the high positive balance is due to the number of units under the rad program in the district. the ordinance also requires projected housing balance, essentially net new affordable housing units as proportion of
the net units in projects that received entitlements and have yet to receive building permits. this slide shows projected housing balance 22%. this is 6% points higher than the previous reported period. it is also provided at the board district and planning district levels. the housing balance ordinance specifies three major multi phase projects that have been entitled but do not have building permits not included in the projected housing balance until phasing moved to applying for and receiving building permits. altogether remaining phases will provide about 21,450 net new units of which 23% will be
affordable. i would like to note as well there are other entitled multiyear multi phase projects not specifically called out by the mandate. these include ps70, mission rock and hope sf projects not counted year as these have yet to get permits issued. affordability range from 25% to 40%. also not included in projected housing balance are projects under reyou. 14,380 units under review as of the end of last quarter 10% affordable. 62 projects with 10,500 units will be subject to inclusion affordable housing requirements. that could mean 1260 new affordable units if built on
site. this could change depending on the option developers choose to fulfill the requirement. i will talk about other miscellaneous housing balance matters. the housing balance biannual reporting schedule as stipulated in the ordinance. that will come out on the first of april and first of october. it mandates annual hearing to be conducted before the board of supervisors each april. the mayor's office of housing and community development and economic and work force development and stabilization board and department of building inspection and city economist will each present these consistent with affordable housing goals at the annual hearing. should the cumulative balances fall below 33% they will determine the amount of funding
needed to bring the city into the required minimum 33%. i would like to acknowledge amy chan. bill strong and they are here to answer the questions you may have. the planning department created a website specifically for the housing balance report as required by the ordinance. the current report and previous once can be downloaded from this site that is all for now. i will be here for questions the supervisors may have. thank you. >> thank you once again for compiling all of this data. supervisors may have questions for you on mr. stron or mr. collins. >> i am looking at the report on page 9. it talks about owner move ins.
it says they were not specifically called out by the ordinance included in the calculation. they were added later on. i just want to understand a little more behind that. i don't know if it tells the whole story. >> a little bit the reason for that amendment was that the board actually came to the conclusion that owner move ins basically took a rent controlled apartment unit out of protected status forever or for a significant period of time because of the way the owner move in law works. that was why we decided that should be part of the loss calculation. >> that was in november. i was going to finish saying i saw that was the intent of the original sponsor. thanthank you for clarifying.
what i want to understand in my district the vast majority of housing is single family homes. i want to understand how that calculates in. single family homes are not under rent control as the law is currently written. i want to understand where this 268 owner move ins were. >> there are probably smaller or duplexes structures. it is not all, and i think mr. collins would be able to answer that. >> i want to see the backup information on the data. the low number of demolition. medium side makes more sense to me. i understand there was some unwarranted demolition that would fall under rent control because you are expanded single family to nonsingle.
we have a low number. when you look at owner move in, it is significantly higher than the rest of the numbers on that side. i would like to understand that a little more and where you came to that number, specifically for my district. >> robert collins, assistant director at the rent board. single family homes if built before 1979 are subject to rent ordinance. however, they may be exempt from price controls in certain situations. if the tenancy began after 1/1/96 and hasn't been under eviction this would not be under the eviction aspect. we get owner move ins for single family. i haven't looked at the online data. >> it doesn't meet the spirit what you are saying.
some are and some aren't if they are built fire to that date they don't follow under rent control. >> before june 13, 1979 subject to owner move in eviction. >> i know they are subject to those laws. in terms of rent control they are not. the numbers might be misleading. i want to understand the data more. that is all. >> it is difficult to understand because the numbers are kind of a combination. once there is an owner move in eviction they are subject to price controls five years. following the owner move in eviction it is a mix. >> if they are moving in we want to insure they are living there and not just telling people they are moving? >> number of move ins are same as net new units. both were 268. >> it was probably coincidental. >> i would like to see the backup data. that is all.
>> we could provide that. >> that would be great. thank you for the clarification. i mean just for the record we know we have owner move ins. we know people are destabilized. from the spirit what is written about represent control unit -- rent control units off the market based on amendment in 2016, i don't think that falls in line with what the housing balance is trying to gauge. that is all. thank you, supervisor. >> mr. collins, if you heard my ruminations about buyouts, i am interested in starting a conversation publicly and with your department and my colleagues whether there is a way that we can either determine or estimate things we are missing as part of what should be subtracted.
specifically, i know that in many instances, a notice of a preliminary buyout offer is filed. a final buyout is not filed. there seems to be many more preliminaries and very few finals, as i understand it. at least in the corner of the city i represent, i know those people have left, and i assume they did it with money. in some instances i have received information people enter into contracts where they contract ali agree they are not going to divulge and if they divulge the agreement is null and void and subject to litigation and what have you. nonetheless, practically speaking, that three or four unit building is now vacant, and what i think happens is that they become tics which we cannot regulate.
they are not omi but they are out there to further change the percentage. a, what do you think about this? b, do you have data or can we produce da data to amend the law and calculate or provide or at minimum shall we say at least the buyouts should be part of the calculation? >> chair peskin, thank you for that question. the last annual buyout report we received 379 buyout agreements at the rent board, and we received 962 preh prebuyout ord. what is missing in this information is as you mentioned we don't how many were not filed, by definition. i think more importantly, we don't know the genesis for the
buyout offer itself. the only caution note that i provide is that the buyouts don't usually have a history of how they got to agree to a buyout. they don't have the underlying notice or issue. they have a variety of payouts given as a result. one can infer maybe some were for potentially at fault or no fault evictions. it is only speculation so that is what is missing from the buyout ordinance. we don't have the underlying reason for the buyout, if you would, as part of that data. we have the mass of buyouts and how much the tenant was paid and how much tenants were in the unit. it is entirely up to you to come up with the calculation to make sense. these are complex laws. we are often working with those
kinds of issues which is trying to balance what the law actually says with air picture we want to produce to figure out if we are doing a good job with housing production as opposed to displacement. >> i will bet you dollars to doughnuts if we could take your 900 or 370 and cross correlate them with mr. strahan's department of building inspection, you would see in a large number of those cases subsequent to that buyout a building permit is filed that may or may not require an entitlement at planning. almost instantly after the buyout happens somebody fluffs that unit up. while we don't have that data i bet you dollars to doughnuts i can find a real estate listing for that particular place. if we can match all of these things up, we can with great
certainty say this should be part of the calculation related to units removed from protected status. that is the number i am drilling down into. it may well change the policies that this board of supervisors and our chief executive officer pursue if we realize that for every unit of affordable housing we are building we are losing one as opposed to the other terrible statistic for every two we build we are losing one because i think that might emphasize policies around preservation and protection of what i fundamentally think is the most affordable housing stock that we have. with that, supervisor haney, you might have a question. the mayor office office of housing is here.
>> thank you, mr. doll lynns. then -- mr. collins. then i will open it up to public comment. we may have more questions. i have one speaker card and i see two other nonmembers or noncity employees here. ms. flandrick and mr. robos. janet you have up to three minutes in you want to testify. >> good afternoon. i am really glad this is being discussed today, especially buyouts. this is what i see a lot in my neighborhood as well as reports of our anti-displacement coalition. it is a way to get people out without using the ellis act how it is currently being used.
number one if they are protected tenants in there, no one would know using a buyout. there would be no constraint on the building. it is indeed beneficial to the new owner to do it that way. to find a way to measure that, i would like to show you also a three unit building at the end of my street when i lived on lombard if i could have the overhead, please. this is where folks that i knew who raised two children, moderate housing for a family. this is what it has become after richard silver was coerced out of his home after battling the buyout offer for nearly a year. this did indeed become of his home which is now on the market for $3 million. this is just one of three units that all are very similar.
it can also be found on hot path. as i saw yesterday for $14,000 a month you can rent that. this is the reality. much of the time with buyouts, and we need to measure that. that is no longer affordable to anyone that any of us know here in the city today. that is a loss of yet more affordable rental housing. thank you. >> thank you. mr. robles. >> senior disability action. $14,000 each month. i cannot afford that. no way. again, the buyouts are misused. they are being abused big time, again, finding ways to measure this. we can't afford to lose any more rent controlled housing stock. i am glad that this hearing is
addressing this issue because we have been losing out for much, much too long. we hope to put policies into effect to counter there in the opposite direction. >> next speaker, please. >> janette collide. >> i am a small business owner in north beach. i am a resident of the mission. i want to say that i think this report argues for a registry, a complete housing registry. there is no way you will be able to track san francisco's inventory without a comprehensive registry to be done by the tax collector's office. the other is to your point about losing units and not tracking them. there is a significant number of people just leaving because the price of living, the cost of living in the bay area is so high that people are packing up
to move for other opportunities. those are silently lost units. one in north beach was renting for -- a seven room flat for $1,200. i don't know what that seven room flat is renting for today. that is impacting our small businesses, our ability to retain employees, and so we hope this information will give policy makers the needed information to rebalance the way we do affordable housing because we need our middle income and our middle earners. they have to have a place to go. they don't right now. thank you. >> a shameless shoutout. go patron now her establishment. thank you, mr. right. >> talk about middle income.
high income. what about the very low and low income bracket people? the people living off social security benefits, retirement benefits and the people who are homeless and living in transit in the street and the people that are employees working on your payroll but not getting any money in their andnuity or retirement fund? this is displacing low-income people out of permanent housing to renovate the unit and multiply the rent in order for people in high income brackets to enjoy that. you are running a racket. you are racketeering in violation of the damn ricoh act. it is criminal what you are doing. sooner or later i will put these
issues and the demonstrations before you in front of the district court judge and heads will start rolling. you are depriving low-income people of due process and equal protection under the law. that is not equal protection under the law where you only provide luxury housing and permanent housing for people in high income brackets while people in low income brackets you treat them unfairly with differential treatment. you are part of it. you are part of it. you it is there on the other side of the god damn fence. one of you told me the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. you know who you are, ain't that right, mr. p? it is disgusting. >> thank you, mr. right. seeing no other members for public comment. public comment is closed.
supervisor haney. >> thank you, chair peskin. i have one question on reporting and one broader question to bring up the representative from the mayor's office of housing. in terms of reporting, i understand why we organize the affordability around low, low madder rat and middle. i -- moderate. i know we define projects in different categories, for example, reporting how much family housing we are building, for example is not included here. i don't know if it is in some level of the reporting or specifically for people homeless or veterans. it is something that would be helpful to know. i don't know if that is immediately available. the other question i know that this is one of the types of reporting we have to do on a
regular basis. you mention there is affordable housing goals that we have set through prop k or that the mayor had set in the housing element. what are the sort of reporting that happens around those goals and how -- what sort of -- how do we respond to the fact we are clearly not on track to meet these goals as i understand them? in fact we are seeing moving in the wrong direction in terms of getting closer to meeting the goals? is there a response in terms of what we are doing to get back on track? meeting our affordable housing production goals? >> ms. tan from the mayor's office of housing.
>> thank you for that question, supervisor haney. a me chan. from the 2014 housing production goals to build 30,000 units by 2020 and 10,000 being affordable. we are on track to meeting those goals. to date we built 24,985 total homes. since 2014 of those 7832 have been affordable homes. we are on tractor the 30 thousands 10,000 affordable goal for 2020. additionally through legislation passed by supervisor row nan last year, we do quarterly reporting on the status of affordable housing pipeline and we submit that to the board every quarter. your offices should be receiving them. those are detailed reports showing what is in the pipeline, which permits have those
projects received, which are they due to receive and what is the estimated construction start for those projects? i think in terms of the larger conversation about displacement and losing affordable homes through rent control and evictions at a rate gradeter than production, that is something we need to look at. our office is focused on anti displacement programs. the small program is successful at preserving rent control buildings at risk. we have additional $40 million from the excess funds to put towards additional small sites acquisition. we look forward to putting it out for that funding later this year. the board also -- excuse me the
city passed right to tenant eviction -- right to eviction defense policy last year. we are in the process of implementing that program. this guarantees any tent facing an eviction has a right to a free legal council. we will implement that later this summer. we are focused on efforts to preserve rent control housing. focused on efforts to provide eviction funds to tenants that need it and other ideas the board may have on how we can do this work. >> can you break down a little bit how we are -- the numbers you mentioned in terms of a goal set in 2014 to build 30,000 units of housing by 2020 and to have 10,000 of those be
affordable? that doesn't look like what i'm seeing in terms of the numbers you just said matching up. this is also showing there is not dates on all of these pages but a different time period and a longer period of time starting in 2009. what was the goal in 2014? you mention a number of 7,000 some affordable communities? what does that include? >> 10,000 affordable apartment homes by the year 2020. we are on track to get to that number. i don't have the actual like the whole list of all of the projects from 2014 until now. i am happy to provide that to you. >> thank you. >> i would like to respond to supervisor haney's question. i would like to make a plug abou